"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [و‎‎٣‎٩] (٦١٠/٨٨)

00039
in the Ued Sea and Persian Gulf, and that in 1900 the Slave Trade was still
goins: on (State Papers, vol. xciv, p. 754). In each of these years a French
vessel had been seized with slaves on board.
It is attempted to discredit the evidence adduced in support of the British
allegations that slave trading still continues from Africa and Arabia to the
Persian Grulf, and that the French flag is used at times to cover it. The two
Governments naturally rely in the main on the reports which they receive from
their officials. The French contention seems to be that no African or Indian
in British service is to be believed in any statement which he makes, and that
British sailors are induced by desire for the bounties (described in the " Contre-
•« Contre-M&noire," p. 57. Memoire" as prizcmoney) to make
Contre-M^moire," p. 135. imaginative reports. These bounties, be
it said, are only awarded after judicial condemnation for slave tradings and
inconsiderate or irregular seizure brings reprimand, and not reward. (See
< 'The Slave Trade Act, 1873," 36 and 37 Vict., cap. 88, sections 11—16 ) It is
inevitable that in African and Asiatic waters and territories some resort must
be made to the evidence of natives; but even allowing a reasonable discount for
Oriental inaccuracy. His Majesty's Government submit that the statements on
the subject of slave dealing made by Orientals contained in the British Case
must carry considerable weight more especially when all that France has to
oppose to them is the statements of other Orientals, the Arabs in question, who
have a far more direct interest, to deny, than the British witnesses have to
affirm, the facts in controversy.
Great Britain is justified in drawing attention to the international incon
venience caused to the Signatories of the Brussels Act by the refusal of France
to ratify Article XLII, and it would seem that the French Commanders of war
ships engaged in suppressing the Slave Trade have found it necessary to point
. „ 0rt this out to their Government. M. JVIartel,
outre-. eiBoire, p. . Commander of the " Dr6me," in his
report of the 10th December, 1900, says that the refusal to accept the provisions
of Article XLII makes it necessary to insist on the importance of enforcing
Article XXXIV of the Act as to having the name of the vessel cut in Latin
characters on the stern, and the marking of the sail with the letter of the " port
d'attache," and the register number of the vessel. It has been pointed out in'
the British Case (p. 17) that the dhows which were at siir at the date of the
Sultan's visit in June 1900 had not com-
*' Contre-Meraoire, p. 250. pliad with ^ Artiol e XXXI V. M.
Chautemps, Minister of the Colonies, says, in his letter of the 9th July,
1*95:—
" H n'est pas impossible, neanmoins, que des boutres de contrebande
arborent illegalement notre pavilion pour se livrer a la traite avec plus de
facilite;"
A lid Commander Kiesel, in his note of
ontre-. moire, p. . the 13th June, 1902, in speaking of the
Mozambique coast, says
" Sur cette c6te, d'ailleurs, il y a lieu d'etre tres actif et trfes prudent, parce
que les boutres arborent le pavilion qu'ils jugent le plus avantageux a I'instant
present. Comme le Portugal y a en permanence un croiseur et plusieurs can-
onnieres, que I'Angleterre y a en permanence des batiments, le pavilion fran-
^ais est commode, quand le croiseur fratals n'y est pas."
If Article XLII applied to vessels under the French flag, the abnse of the
flag above referred to would be impossible. But the admission of M. Kiesel
fully supports the statement made at p. 11 of the British Case, that Arabs who
engage in the Slave Trade are fully aware of the gap created by the non-adhesion of
France in the meshes of the net which would otherwise completely envelop their
nefarious traffic, and the anxiety of France to inform all the world that the
" droit de visite " does not exist as to vessels flying her flag on the high seas hafc
/